Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You conceded the argument. Liberty only has value in so much as it increases happiness. That's why you can take liberty away and increase happiness.

Did you not compare your quote to my quote? I just took what you said and changed equality with liberty, to show that they can be interchangable in your discussion, dispensing with equality as an end.

Happiness, I already dealt with, when I asked WHO'S happiness. It falls on that point. Sure people want to be happy, but that mostly means their own happiness and not anyone else's.

Your argument flies in the face of the scienific method. Your experience is insignificant, and completely irrelevent.

The scientific method! If you actually think you can divorce your experience from analyzing anything you are barking mad. It is what allows you to make sense of the world. You can't analyze anything if you can't make sense of it.

I've yet to see anyone divorce their biases from their points. That is why people come to so many vastly different conclusions from one premise.

More than one s means you lose the argument

No, it means that you saying you can overcome your anti-corporate bias when you never have come close in your time on Apolyton is a bit hard to swallow.

You've also showed you bias, in this thread, against Christians. You couldn't put yourself in their socks, not even mentioning their shoes.

[DinoDoc]

I won the arguement when Agathon started ranting about the US media. I was just peeking in again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
See... DD and GePap's posts show my point about experiences and biases coloring people's beliefs. I'm sure both think they are being unbiased in their views.

Wrong. I know I am biased. On the basic logical points Agathon was winning, because it is wrong to state that he was somehow blaming China's p[olicy on MS. The sole issue is whether MS should agree to make such software as the price for being in the Chinese market.

I also find the notion China would not allow MS to make XBoxes in China unless it made the software China wanted baseless speculation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No DD just made a bald assertion, which is common place here when another right wing nut is no longer making any sense in an argument.

Here is Kid being unbiased! How did I know he was going to say that?! It must be because I too am unbiased and am in tune with Kid's unbiased ways...

But, oh noes! I thought DD was right! How is that possible!

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by MarkG
so if microsoft was around in ww2 what kind of software would it build for the nazis?

The sort that crashes battleships , what else .

( Note : For those not in the know : In a famous incident , Windows NT , which was running the systems of a US Navy battleship , segfaulted and crashed , and the battleship uas effectively unusable until the system was rebooted . The cause of the error was a typing mistake/wrong entry by a data-entry operator for some database the US Navy was using . )

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Wrong. I know I am biased. On the basic logical points Agathon was winning, because it is wrong to state that he was somehow blaming China's p[olicy on MS. The sole issue is whether MS should agree to make such software as the price for being in the Chinese market.

And on that issue, Agathon has said nothing but "it's unethical".

That's why he lost, a long, long time ago.

I countered that claim when I made the similar claim that I found Apple's practices were unethical as well.

What it comes down to is -- so what? Businesses exist to make money. If you don't like it, vote communist, then censor everyone -- like China.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You conceded the argument. Liberty only has value in so much as it increases happiness. That's why you can take liberty away and increase happiness.

Did you not compare your quote to my quote? I just took what you said and changed equality with liberty, to show that they can be interchangable in your discussion, dispensing with equality as an end.

I see exactly what you did, and you pwned yourself.

Happiness, I already dealt with, when I asked WHO'S happiness. It falls on that point. Sure people want to be happy, but that mostly means their own happiness and not anyone else's.

And their own happiness is insignificant, and irrelevent to the discussion when it's not even about them. It's about the other side of the world.

Your argument flies in the face of the scienific method. Your experience is insignificant, and completely irrelevent.

The scientific method! If you actually think you can divorce your experience from analyzing anything you are barking mad. It is what allows you to make sense of the world. You can't analyze anything if you can't make sense of it.

No. Using your own experience only will force you to come to very ****ed up conclusions. Using the human experience will generally allow you to make much better conclusions.

I've yet to see anyone divorce their biases from their points. That is why people come to so many vastly different conclusions from one premise.

How would you know whether they are divorced from their bias?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

No one seems to be arguing with him on that point.

The point is it doesn't matter if he finds it immoral.

If you trully did not care, you would not participate in the thread.

The point is that nobody cares what a philosophy instructor thinks in the world of big business, where ideals take a back seat to the practical.

And you think we care what you think either? You have issues.

And in the real world, if Microsoft's actions do not affect China's censorship policies, it is in Microsoft's best interests to compete in that market.

Actually, they do help make it easier for the Chinese. They don;t have the technical expertise to censor that way, which is why they demand corporations do it. If all non-Chinese corporations resited doing this, then the Chinese would either curtail web use, which they know would hurt them economically in the long term, or have to accept people would bypass their laws.

Anyone who has such ideals as Aggie wouldn't last a day in the real world of business.

You mean like highly profitable Ben and Jerry's ice cream?

Yeah, those two guys are in the poor house due to their liberal human rights sort of thinking. Yup, no business accumen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I also find the notion China would not allow MS to make XBoxes in China unless it made the software China wanted baseless speculation.

Yeah, because if you break a country's laws and don't rectify it after they ask you to do so, they'll just let you produce whatever you want in their borders, especially when the government is a dictatorship .

The sole issue is whether MS should agree to make such software as the price for being in the Chinese market.

And I think he lost badly on that aspect. Especially when you couple that with his general anti-MS bias. He was just railing on MS and I don't recall this rage on account of other US companies that do the same thing while in the Chinese market.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Here is Kid being unbiased! How did I know he was going to say that?! It must be because I too am unbiased and am in tune with Kid's unbiased ways...

But, oh noes! I thought DD was right! How is that possible!

Bald denial of when you pwn yourself?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

And on that issue, Agathon has said nothing but "it's unethical".

That's why he lost, a long, long time ago.

I countered that claim when I made the similar claim that I found Apple's practices were unethical as well.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

God, are you oblivious or what. Maybe this has not gotten through to you yet, but "making a claim" is not enough. You have to back it with arguements. But given that you have already stated you are unwilling to enter into a philosophical debate on ethics, you simply have not presented no arguement for your claims.

Now, maybe you missed the Memo, but

Claim backed by arguement>unsubstantiated claim.

What it comes down to is -- so what? Businesses exist to make money. If you don't like it, vote communist, then censor everyone -- like China.

Does your wit(lessness) know no bounds!

Hey, have you been buying shares on those blood diamond distributors right? And the Elephant Ivory merchants as well?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, they do help make it easier for the Chinese. They don;t have the technical expertise to censor that way, which is why they demand corporations do it.

Err. No?

They could ban Microsoft products from China if they don't modify their products.

You mean like highly profitable Ben and Jerry's ice cream?

Yeah, those two guys are in the poor house due to their liberal human rights sort of thinking. Yup, no business accumen.

You can't seriously compare an ice cream maker to Microsoft, are you?

That's like comparing a tricycle to a Formula One car.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

God, are you oblivious or what. Maybe this has not gotten through to you yet, but "making a claim" is not enough. You have to back it with arguements. But given that you have already stated you are unwilling to enter into a philosophical debate on ethics, you simply have not presented no arguement for your claims.

Now, maybe you missed the Memo, but

Claim backed by arguement>unsubstantiated claim.

Own goal?

That's why Aggie's claim of "it's unethical" falls short.

I think it's pretty obvious that if MS refused to sell products in China, they would make less money. What else do I need to do to back that up?

Does your wit(lessness) know no bounds!

Careful there man, the Chinese are watching. Look at my avatar.

You're going to be next, I've been banned for lesser!

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm


The sort that crashes battleships , what else .

( Note : For those not in the know : In a famous incident , Windows NT , which was running the systems of a US Navy battleship , segfaulted and crashed , and the battleship uas effectively unusable until the system was rebooted . The cause of the error was a typing mistake/wrong entry by a data-entry operator for some database the US Navy was using . )

Blah blah blah, take your dated Linux FUD elsehwere.

It was operator error that crashed the database system, not Windows NT.

The Database was "Standard Monitoring Control System application" (SMCS) developed by Canadian Aviation Electronics Inc. of Toronto.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah, because if you break a country's laws and don't rectify it after they ask you to do so, they'll just let you produce whatever you want in their borders, especially when the government is a dictatorship .

What law would MS be breaking by not selling their software in China, oh great legal expert?

Cause I would be surprised to see a law on China's books that made it illegal NOT to sell software in China.

And I think he lost badly on that aspect. Especially when you couple that with his general anti-MS bias. He was just railing on MS and I don't recall this rage on account of other US companies that do the same thing while in the Chinese market.

His anti-MS bias drives part of his opinion, but it does nothing to undermine the basic logic of it, ie. corporations should have some sort of ethics. Plus he has also noted the difference between basic goods with no political consequences, and technology aimed at the control of information. I agree with Agathon that there is a fundamental difference between making socks in China and selling the Chinese technology making it eaiser for them to crack down on dissent.

Another aspect of this, of course, is the arms embargo. The US does huge trade with China, but does not let our defense contractors sell China guns. Would you claim this is a nutty policy given our other trade with China?